posted on May 17, 2007 11:02:09 AM new
Would this compromise agreement be okay with you should it become the final bill?
While I like parts of it...I don\'t believe it would EVER work. I think they\'re all fooling themselves. Had these illegals wanted to come in legally....they would have. I don\'t see them leaving and then returning legally. LOL
=================================
Agreement Reached on Immigration Reform
May 17 01:41 PM US/Eastern
By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - Key senators and the White House reached agreement Thursday on an immigration overhaul that would grant quick legal status to millions of illegal immigrants already in the U.S. and fortify the border.
The plan would create a temporary worker program to bring new arrivals to the U.S. A separate program would cover agricultural workers. New high-tech enforcement measures also would be instituted to verify that workers are here legally.
The compromise came after weeks of painstaking closed-door negotiations that brought the most liberal Democrats and the most conservative Republicans together with President Bush\'s Cabinet officers to produce a highly complex measure that carries heavy political consequences.
Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., said he expects Bush to endorse the agreement.
The accord sets the stage for what promises to be a bruising battle next week in the Senate on one of Bush\'s top non-war priorities.
The key breakthrough came when negotiators struck a bargain on a so- called \"point system\" that would for the first time prioritize immigrants\' education and skill level over family connections in deciding how to award green cards.
The draft bill \"gives a path out of the shadows and toward legal status for those who are currently here\" illegally, said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.
A spokesman for Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., one of his party\'s key players in the talks, confirmed that the group had reached agreement.
The proposed agreement would allow illegal immigrants to come forward and obtain a \"Z visa\" and—after paying fees and a $5,000 fine—ultimately get on track for permanent residency, which could take between eight and 13 years. Heads of household would have to return to their home countries first.
They could come forward right away to claim a probationary card that would let them live and work legally in the U.S., but could not begin the path to permanent residency or citizenship until border security improvements and the high-tech worker identification program were completed.
A new temporary guest worker program would also have to wait until those so-called \"triggers\" had been activated.
Those workers would have to return home after work stints of two years, with little opportunity to gain permanent legal status or ever become U.S. citizens. They could renew their guest worker visas twice, but would be required to leave for a year in between each time.
Democrats had pressed instead for guest workers to be permitted to stay and work indefinitely in the U.S.
In perhaps the most hotly debated change, the proposed plan would shift from an immigration system primarily weighted toward family ties toward one with preferences for people with advanced degrees and sophisticated skills. Republicans have long sought such revisions, which they say are needed to end \"chain migration\" that harms the economy, while some Democrats and liberal groups say it\'s an unfair system that rips families apart.
Family connections alone would no longer be enough to qualify for a green card—except for spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens.
New limits would apply to U.S. citizens seeking to bring foreign-born parents into the country.
Linda, when you copy pasted the article you failed to include the following lines. Such selective omissions should be noted when you copy paste an entire story.
"Politics is the art of the possible, and the agreement we just reached is the best possible chance we will have in years to secure our borders and bring millions of people out of the shadows and into the sunshine of America," Kennedy said.
Anticipating criticism from conservatives, Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pennsylvania, said, "It is not amnesty. This will restore the rule of law."
The president has said he wants to sign an immigration bill by summer's end.
Excerpt from MSNBC...http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18721945
.......... Bush called it "a much-needed solution to the problem of illegal immigration in this country" and said, if approved, the proposal "delivers an immigration system that is secure, productive, orderly and fair."
"With this bipartisan agreement, I am confident leaders in Washington can have a serious, civil and conclusive debate so I can sign comprehensive reform into law this year," he said in a written statement Thursday.
Sen. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, his party's lead negotiator on the deal, hailed it as "the best possible chance we will have in years to secure our borders and bring millions of people out of the shadows and into the sunshine of America."
posted on May 18, 2007 10:00:59 AM new
And it doesn't appear many are happy with this agreement, to this point either.
Most conservatives don't like it at all.....many liberals, of pelosi ilk, don't support it....and the illegals are SCREAMING mad about it.
Don't think once both houses have worked out the details it's going to look anything like the bill as it now stands.
I don't support it at all. It's nothing but political game playing. With as large a percentage of American's AGAINST illegals being allowed to stay....their faxes are going to be burning hot. LOL
posted on May 18, 2007 10:18:59 AM new
GET THIS HELLEN.....I don't have to prove anything to you.
It's been the MO of all your buddies to never posts links and most of the time never even make anyone aware of WHERE their copy and paste even came from.
But it's LAUGHABLE that you require of me what you NEVER require of them.
The time and date of my AP article is listed....the article was posted IN FULL....and if YOU want to verify that...then YOU can do so. On the AP website.
Don't even TRY to continue your habitual LYING about MY actions.
posted on May 18, 2007 10:53:25 AM new
Lighten up, Linda_K.
No reason to be so cantankerous on each topic. Now I'm off to paint my porch so you can be free to throw your tantrums without my interruptions...hahaha
posted on May 18, 2007 11:08:10 AM new
Remember....that those who appear so concerned about 'families' of the illegals -are supporting them ALSO bringing their whole families here. Picture the number of illegals that are here now....11 million to 20 million according to whose reporting....and then ADD what? four, five additional family members for EACH illegal already here?
Wow...get ready to support up to 100,000 million MORE immigrants.
No way, imo. Our congress has lost their minds.
========================
Las Vegas SUN
Today: May 18, 2007 at 3:45:6 PDT
Immigration Deal Faces Tough Road
By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS
Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) -
0517dv-immigration-reform
A bipartisan immigration deal that would grant legal status to millions of people in the country unlawfully is drawing criticism from across the political spectrum.
The bargain reached between key Democratic and Republican senators and the White House faces an uncertain future in the Senate, which is set to begin debating it Monday.
"I don't know if the immigration legislation is going to bear fruit and we're going to be able to pass it," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., who harbored "serious concerns" about the deal.
Even if it were to survive what's certain to be a searing Senate battle,the measure would be up against long odds in the House.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., acknowledging deep divisions on immigration among Democrats, says she won't bring it up unless President Bush can guarantee he will produce 70 Republican backers - a tall order given GOP concerns that the bill is too lenient.
The agreement, which also mandates tougher border security and workplace enforcement, marked an extraordinary marriage of liberal and conservative goals that has the potential to bridge stubborn divides and ensure enactment of new laws this year.
Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., his party's lead negotiator on the deal, called it an example of the "politics of the possible," while conservative Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., said it was the "best opportunity" for a bipartisan solution to the nation's immigration problems.
It was soon under attack, however, from a set of lawmakers and interest groups as diverse as those that united to craft it. Their varying concerns and competing agendas - along with a challenging political environment -could be enough to unravel the painstakingly written agreement.
Two of the key players in the talks from each end of the political spectrum, Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., and Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, walked away from the deal before it was announced.
Conservatives branded it "amnesty," complaining that it would reward the nation's estimated 12 million illegal immigrants with a way of gaining legal status and staying in the U.S. permanently without being punished.
"What part of illegal does the Senate not understand? Any plan that rewards illegal behavior is amnesty," said Rep. Brian Bilbray, R-Calif., chairman of the Immigration Reform Caucus.
The deal would allow illegal immigrants to come forward right away, but they could not get visas or begin a path to citizenship until the border security improvements and a high-tech worker identification program were in place.
After that, illegal immigrants could obtain a renewable "Z visa" that would allow them stay in the country indefinitely. After paying fees and fines totaling $5,000, they could ultimately get on track for permanent residency, which could take between eight and 13 years. Heads of households would have to return to their home countries first.
Liberals, on the other hand, are unhappy with the proposal because it makes a far-reaching change in the immigration system that would admit future arrivals seeking to put down roots in the U.S. based on their skills, education levels and job experience - limiting the importance of family ties.
"We have concerns about the historic shift away from family unification as the backbone of our immigration system," said Kevin Appleby of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
Immigrant advocacy and labor groups also oppose the terms of a new guest worker program in which low-skilled immigrants would be forced to leave the country after temporary stints and would have limited opportunities to stay and get on a path to permanent legalization.
"Without a real path to legalization, the program will exclude millions of workers and thus ensure that America will have two classes of workers, only one of which can exercise workplace rights," said John J. Sweeney, the AFL-CIO president.
Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., announced Thursday that he will move to kill the guest worker program because it would hurt American workers.
Many liberal groups, which revere Kennedy as his party's decisive voice on immigration, reserved judgment on the deal, calling it a good starting point and holding out hope of improving it during next week's Senate debate. But they also voiced substantial worries.
Jorge Mursuli of People For the American Way said the measure "departs radically from America's immigration tradition of putting family reunification first. This bill also includes a future worker program that is destined for failure." Mursuli nonetheless called the plan a "solid start."
Presidential politics could also complicate the deal's chances. Fissures among the candidates started emerging swiftly after it was announced.
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who helped shape the deal, called it "long overdue."
However, Mitt Romney said it was the "wrong approach," which provided "a form of amnesty" to illegal immigrants.
Fred Thompson, who is considering entering the race, said it should be scrapped in favor of a measure to secure the border.
Democratic Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., who is seeking his party's presidential nomination, said the proposal needed more work. "We need to fix our immigration system, but we should not replace one dysfunctional, broken system with another equally troubled system," Obama said.
==
Las Vegas SUN
Here is a link that is similar to the original post. I am not going to say that this is where the original OP got her information because then I would be accussed of thinking/posting for her.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on May 18, 2007 01:24:01 PM new
You can't even do that right, ld. LOL
Try paying attention to the TIME listed on my AP article.
How do you get out of your house, without help?
LOL LOL
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on May 18, 2007 01:25 PM ]
I sometimes check her data and source just for my information and amusement. Today, I found the original AP story that she copy pasted yesterday... the original story word for word with the exception that her copy paste did not include a remark by Ted Kennedy and a favorable remark by Arlen Specter. A mention that the president planned to sign a bill by summer was also omitted.
A simple link could clear up such confusion but she chose not to provide one.
posted on May 18, 2007 02:05:37 PM new
Linda_K
posted on May 18, 2007 01:24:01 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can't even do that right, ld. LOL
Try paying attention to the TIME listed on my AP article.
How do you get out of your house, without help?
LOL LOL """"
ROFLMAO!
The above post is from a person who couldn't read her OWN OP correctly !!
posted on May 18, 2007 02:05:58 PM newTry paying attention to the TIME listed on my AP article.
Go blow it out your hole Linda.
Did you even bother to read the article I posted. OTHER THAN THE TIME DIFFERENCE, IT IS THE SAME EXACT ARTICLE. It must have been posted to one site at one time and your site later in the day.
You got all bent out of shape because the TIME was different.
A simple link could clear up such confusion but she chose not to provide one.
I agree Helen. She spent some much effort arguing that her information and sources were correct. She could have just posted a link and be done with it.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on May 18, 2007 03:15:28 PM new
Linda, when you post an article without links and that article is questioned it's your credibility that's on the line...not mine.
If a link to your "article" is available, I am sure that you will use it. The fact that you have not should lead most reasonable people to conclude that you have something to hide.
posted on May 18, 2007 03:18:34 PM new
My credibility has NEVER been on the line. I always link every article that I post and every comment that I quote.
posted on May 18, 2007 03:21:49 PM new
ROFLOL JUST as I thought....all lying talk...no proof. AS USUAL for you helen.
I don't owe anyone a link UNTIL you require that of everyone....including your liberal buddies that can't post even ONE intelligent post in this thread.
No...so much more fun to go around LYING about me.
I have my link ALL READY....right after YOU you habitual LIAR.
Let's see yours hellen.
YOU LIAR.
You love smearing me and then NEVER backing up your FALSE claims.
It's so you helen.
Come on....put your supposed link that's proves this nonsense you FALSELY stated about the link I used.
COWARD, helen?????
LIAR helen????
Yep, it looks like that is the CASE once again.
shame on you.
put it up or they'll KNOW you lied.
I have MY proof ready and waiting....while you play more of your BS games.
No, you never found a lie by me. At times you call a difference of opinion a lie but no, I never lie.
This happened many times at OTWA before you were suspended. You accused many good people there of lying when they only had a difference of opinion with you.
posted on May 18, 2007 03:59:37 PM new
ROFLMHO.....SURE you do hellen.
LOL LOL LOL
Post it.
All except idiots know when the same AP reporter updates their articles.....they post pretty much the same thing WITH any updates they have to add.
That's why the TIME it was posted is VERY important.
And you can't post the same link....because it didn't have that additional information on it....that YOU LIED about me omitting.
You're a LIAR helen ....and all you can do is give us MORE talk......NO LINK to the article I POSTED....in FULL
Your credibility just went in the toilet once again, helen .
You can't prove what you lied about....because there IS no such article WITH the additional info. you're LYING about.
helenjw - posted on May 18, 2007 06:06:03 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linda, when you copy pasted the article you failed to include the following lines. Such selective omissions should be noted when you copy paste an entire story.
==========
So PROVE IT to all of us hellen.
Don't keep talking and bring up other lies......prove THIS lie helen.
===========posted on May 17, 2007 11:02:09 AM edit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Would this compromise agreement be okay with you should it become the final bill?
While I like parts of it...I don\'t believe it would EVER work. I think they\'re all fooling themselves. Had these illegals wanted to come in legally....they would have. I don\'t see them leaving and then returning legally. LOL
=================================
Agreement Reached on Immigration Reform
May 17 01:41 PM US/Eastern
By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS
Associated Press Writer
Come on hellen.....prove what you're FALSELY claiming.
LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL
LIAR - you rarely know what you're talking about....but this SMEAR takes the cake.
BACK up your LIES helen.
[ edited by Linda_K on May 18, 2007 04:06 PM ]
[ edited by Linda_K on May 18, 2007 04:10 PM ]
